✦ High Court of India

The High Court

Case Details

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.3166 of 2025 Nanda Kishore Sethi …. Petitioner Mr. H.P. Rath, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Another …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K.Panda, ASC COROM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

Decision

ORDER 18.03.2025 Order No 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Pursuant to order dt.11.02.2025, learned Addl. Standing Counsel provided the instruction in Court. The same be kept on record. 4. The Present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer: It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that, this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ petition, issue RULE NISI by calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the impugned order under Annexure-4 shall not be declared as illegal and quashed and they shall not be directed the petitioner into service with all consequential service and financial benefits; to reinstate And upon failing to show cause or showing insufficient cause, said rule be made absolute, allow the writ petition, quash the impugned order under Annexure-4 and issue // 2 // writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties toe reinstate petitioner into service with all consequential service and financial benefits within a stipulated time as would be fixed by this Hon’ble Court. And pass order(s)/ any direction(s) issues writ/writs this Hon’ble Court would deem fit and proper. other And for this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray. 5. It is contended that during continuance of the Petitioner as a regular Primary School Teacher, a proceeding was initiated against him vide memorandum dt.04.04.2023 under Annexure-2. It is contended that on receipt of the memorandum, Petitioner submitted his written statement of defence and Inquiry Officer was appointed vide order dt.24.08.2023 under Annexure-3. But thereafter, no further progress was made to the said proceeding. However, all of a sudden, Petitioner was issued with the impugned order dt.18.12.2023 under Annexure-4, wherein the Petitioner was dismissed and removed from his post. 5.1. It is contended that since Petitioner is a regular Primary School teacher and the proceeding vide Annexure-2 was initiated under Rule 15 of the OCS (CC & A) Rules, 1962, prior to finalization of the said proceeding with passing of an appropriate order, no order of termination could have been passed by Opp. Party No.4, who is also not the Disciplinary Authority of the Petitioner also. 5.2. It is contended that the proceeding in question was initiated by Opp. Party No.5 and it is the Opp. Party No.5 Page 2 of 5 // 3 // who is competent to take a final decision in the said proceeding in accordance with law. It is contended that since the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner was never finalized in accordance with law with passing of any order of punishment, Opp. Party No.4 was not competent to pass the order of termination vide order dt.18.12.2023 under Annexure-4. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6. Basing on the instruction, learned Addl. Standing Counsel contended that since the B.Ed pass certificate of the Petitioner produced by him at the time of his engagement as Sikshya Sahayak was found to be a fake one, D.E.O, Puri-Opp. party No.4, being a superior authority to Opp. Party No.5, held the continuance of the Petitioner on the face of such fake certificate not in the interest of the Department and accordingly passed the order of termination vide order dt.18.12.2023 under Annexure-4. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with the said order. 7. To the submission made by the learned Addl. Standing Counsel, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the Proceeding was initiated against him on self-same charges that Petitioner has produced a fake B.Ed Certificate to get the benefit of appointment. Since the issue with regard to submission of fake B.Ed Certificate is an issue in the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner under Annexure-2, prior to finalization of the said proceeding in accordance with law, Page 3 of 5 // 4 // no order of termination could have been passed by Opp. Party No.4 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that Petitioner while continuing as a Level-V (A ) Asst. Teacher in Charchika U.G. U.P. School, a proceeding under Rule- 15 of the OCS (CC & A ) Rule, 1962 was initiated vide memorandum dt.04.07.2023 of Opp. Party No.5 under Annexure-2. As found after submission of the written statement of defence, vide order dt.24.08.2023, Inquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the inquiry. But thereafter Petitioner was terminated from his services vide the impugned order dt.18.12.2023 under Annexure-4 of Opp. Party No.4 8.1. Since the Petitioner is a regular Primary School Teacher and rightly the proceeding was initiated against him under Rule 15 of the Rules, as per the considered view of this Court, prior to finalization of the said proceeding in accordance with law, no order of punishment could not have been passed by terminating him from his services. It is also the view of this Court that since the Proceeding was initiated by Opp. Party No.5, Opp. Party No.4 was not competent to pass any order of termination. 8.2. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is inclined to quash order dt.18.12.2023 so passed by Opp. party No.4 under Annexure-4. While quashing the said order, this Court allows the Writ Petition. Page 4 of 5 // 5 // 8.3. However, it is open for Opp. party No.5 to take up the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner vide memorandum dt.04.04.2023 and decide the same in accordance with law in which this Court expresses no opinion. 8.4. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. Sangita (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authentication of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 21-Mar-2025 18:16:16 Page 5 of 5

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments